TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 670
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the following additional grounds and submitted that the additional grounds go to the root of the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer (AO) and they are purely legal issues which do not require any investigation or verification. The Ld.AR further submitted that due to inadvertent mistake, the additional grounds were not taken before the Ld.CIT(A)Therefore, requested to admit the additional grounds. The additional grounds raised by the assessee read as under: "1. The notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in PAN: AABCG7552M dated-25-09-2009 in the case of the appellant for A,Y.2004- 05 is ambiguous as the Assessing Officer didn't specify the grounds on which penalty was imposed i.e., whether for concealment of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d, the Ld.DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. In the instant case, the AO levied penalty of Rs. 18,00,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income. The AO issued notice initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c) vide notice dated 25.09.09 which is placed in the paper book in page No.17. The notice issued by the AO reads as under : From the perusal of the penalty notice, it is observed that the AO has initiated the penalty proceedings without striking the irrelevant column i.e. for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereby casing ambiguity in initiation of penalty proceedings. The assessing officer ought to have struck off the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income." 11. It would be apposite at this stage to consider the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory's (supra). Therein, a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court observed that section 271 of the Act of 1961 is a specific provision providing for imposition of penalties and is a complete code in itself regulating the procedure for such imposition. The Bench therefore held that penalty proceedings have to be conducted in accordance therewith, subject always to the rules of natural justice. It was pointed out that section 271 makes appropriate provision for levying penalties on an assessee in different eventualities and one such eventual....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome cases may attract both the offences and in some, there may be overlapping of both, but in such cases initiation of the penalty proceedings must be specifically for both the offences. Drawing up penalty proceedings for one offence and finding the assessee guilty of another or finding him guilty for either, the one or the other, was held to be unsustainable in law. 12. In CIT v. Manu Engg. Works [1980] 122 ITR 306 (Guj.), a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court observed that the Assessing Officer must give a positive finding as to whether there is concealment of income by the assessee or whether any inaccurate particulars of such income had been furnished by the assessee. In the event there was no such clear-cut finding, the penalt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ainst him so that he may respond thereto. 15. No doubt, in the present case, the assessee seems to have submitted her explanation on the merits without raising a doubt as to what was the precise allegation levelled against her. However, we are more concerned with the principle involved and not just the isolated case of its application against the assessee. Further, the penalty order demonstrates that the Assessing Officer was not even certain as to what was the finding on the strength of which he imposed the penalty. This is clear from the fact that the Assessing Officer recorded that he was satisfied that the assessee had concealed/furnished inaccurate particulars of income. In the absence of a clear finding by the Assessing Officer hims....